On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :(and what would be the equivalent ALPHA patch?) > :I can imagine the original PDE trick working on the alpha but > :they don't have a spare register sitting around.. do they? > : > :julian > > I'd like to see this too. I will soon have two SMP boxes of my own to > play > with for my own personal use and for an upcoming project, and at least one > will be available for SMP life-testing purposes for several months. > I really want to see two things: (1) Actual sharing of the physical pmap > between rfork(RFMEM|RFPROC)'d processes, and (2) Avoiding the %cr3 reload > ( which clears the TLB ) when switching between such processes. This would also suggest shceduler changes that would increasr the likelyhood of 'related' processes being scheduled together. One scheme I remember id the A-list/B-list scheme, where each scheduling priority has two list that are alternated. whichever list is being drained is not eligible for receiving new items. They must go to the other list. When the active list is drained and theya are switched, the new list is first sorted accoring to affinity related effects. julian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
